Free to choose? Take responsibility for the consequences.

Tag Archives: Freedom

Another mass shooting. Another day of sorrow and loss for many families and friends. Another hue and cry to deny people 2nd Amendment rights as a solution. Before a solution can be presented, the cause must be identified. Otherwise, we’re chasing smoke. And I will never surrender my rights in such a pointless endeavor.

So, let’s try to find the common attributes of those who have committed these kinds of crimes.

Such actions rarely happen suddenly, without any kind of changes in the person’s attitude or personality, and those changes are noticeable to people who are paying attention to them. How many of the perpetrators, young or old, of these shootings have come from homes where the parents were really involved and noticed the aberrant behavior and personality changes taking place in them as they grew up? How many of them had parents who got them the help they needed? How many of them came from homes where the parents were constantly busy making money to buy more stuff? Do kids really need to have computer games? Does each kid really need his/her own laptop? Can’t such things be shared, thereby decreasing the amount of money needed to run the household? Does everyone really need a cell phone? And if a cell phone is available, does it really need to have umpteen thousand gigabytes of data (which costs a fortune in addition to the regular monthly cost) in order to play games and indulge in social media around the clock? Could the family cut many costs down so that all the parents’ time and effort isn’t spent working to earn more money? Wouldn’t that allow more time for actually talking to and paying attention to the kids? Parents would be much more likely to notice changes in their kids’ attitudes and personalities and be better able to address the issues. I mean, you aren’t going to notice such things if you’re living in a house that is run like a rooming house rather than a family home.

How about emotional dysfunction? How many of these people were shown real affection and made to feel like they truly had a safe haven at home? How many of them were pretty much left to come home from school and either spend their time in their room, alone, or run the neighborhood with their friends and no one at home knowing or even caring where they were or who they were with? And knowing that most kids tell you what you want to hear so they can get you to say, “Yes”, did the parents take the time to verify what the kids told them? How many of these people had parents who knew their friends and their friends’ parents? How many of these people had a home life where they were encouraged to participate in music, school clubs, school sports, etc.? How many of them were offered rides by their parents to such activities so that they could participate? How many of them had parents who were proactive in their academic achievements and went to the school to meet and talk with their teachers?

How about morals and standards? How many of these people came from homes where both parents were in the home? How many of them had parents who showed each other respect and affection? How many of them had homes where the family attended some sort of church every week and saw the things taught at church being practiced daily at home? How many of them were expected to maintain a certain level of standards in their manner of speaking and in the way they treated others?

What about discipline if standards weren’t met? Were they beaten? Were they scolded? Was there any consequence for bad behavior at all? Were they taught how to cope with disappointment? Were they treated with respect, but firmness when needed? Were they taught values such as earning what you get, paying for what you damage, returning borrowed items in good repair and in a timely manner, taking care of their possessions, assisting others because it is the right thing to do, not because you might get something in return?

I haven’t done the research into these questions myself, but I would be willing to place a hefty wager on most of those things being negative in the lives of people who commit mass shootings.

Then we have to look at society and culture. Not everything is learned at home. Has society been devolving along moral lines? Media, and now social media, have a huge impact on young minds. Before we saw mass shootings, movies and TV didn’t portray bad behavior, sexual promiscuity, and aberrant sexual behavior as something to be admired and emulated. In fact, movie and TV production was careful to show disdain and consequences for such things. Since that has changed, we have seen a lot of really bad, and too frequently heinous, behavior in our society. There have always been people who have no conscience and do horrible things, but the severity and frequency of such activities has a direct correlation to the changes in media portrayal and praise of this kind of behavior, as well as the lack of family involvement, and the lack of severe consequences for all of it.

So now that we’ve identified many of the commonalities of these criminals, how do we propose to resolve the issue? Well, many people think no one should be allowed to possess firearms. Some just think no one should be allowed to possess certain kinds of firearms. Some think no one should be allowed to possess more than a certain amount of ammunition. Somehow that is supposed to stop these events from happening. Okay, let’s look at that.

People have been inventing ways of killing each other since the dawn of time. As time goes by, old methods of killing are replaced by newer, more efficient methods. No one needed to pass a law prohibiting the possession of spears dipped in curare or sabers. They simply faded into history when “better” weapons were devised. But, to be honest, a rock will do, if one is so inclined to kill. Today we have guns. Most people are sane and able to maintain minimum standards of respect for one another and the law. But how is preventing the people from enjoying their right to keep and bear arms going to stop mass shootings? The only people who could be expected to abide by such a law are the people who already self-govern themselves and don’t do such things. Those who are inclined to commit murder, mass or otherwise, would still find a way to do it. In the meantime, those who would need to defend themselves against those people would be left defenseless. Their rights would be denied them and the killers would still find guns and still kill using guns. I don’t see how that is a reasonable proposal. Would you prefer that such insane people use homemade bombs to accomplish the same thing? You will never stop this kind of heinous action no matter what restrictions you place on society.

Until parents go back to parenting and being involved in their children’s daily lives, until parents stop putting all their efforts into keeping up with the Joneses and instead sacrifice their free time to pay attention to their kids, until parents put out the effort to discipline and do what’s necessary to guide their kids and get them proper treatment when they display dysfunctional behavior, this will not stop, even if all the guns in the world were to disappear tomorrow. When families stop going into separate rooms to watch TV shows rather than watching something all can enjoy, or listening to music alone in their room or on headphones rather than sharing the experience as a family, when families begin attending church every week as a family, when families eat dinner together every night once again (not in front of the TV but seated around a table), when real concern and affection is shown for each family member every day, when society stops funding lecherous and titillating entertainment that edifies disrespect and moral decay, when serious consequences are consistently paid by those who break the rules, then we may see a big drop in this kind of mayhem and the deep hurt it causes. But restricting the freedoms of law abiding citizens in an attempt to curtail the hateful, selfish, and insane actions of a few is not the answer. It won’t even slow it down.

Even if every gun, knife, car, truck, and any other man-made item that could possibly be used to kill on a mass scale were completely removed from the face of the earth, man’s ingenuity would find a way to make something that would accomplish the same effect using rocks if nothing else. The idea that laws are going to prevent crime of any kind is absurd. Laws only punish bad behavior. They don’t, and never will, prevent bad behavior. Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” It simply is not possible to make mental illness a crime. To restrict the liberties of sane people because of the mental illness of a fraction of the population is ridiculous.

Response to online comment by calebsmum to article on Blue Lives Matter website, article titled “Nationwide Manhunt For Michael Bullinger After Multiple Dead Women Found On His Property” dated June 21, 2017

Some background: calebsmum was responding to someone who disagreed with his/her favorable stand on gun control which morphed into what his/her true issues seem to be.

calebsmum How do we pollute less? Lots of way. 🙂 Live close to your work so that you can walk or bike instead of commute 30 minutes to an hour, like many people do. Use carpools, public transportation, bikes; use solar or other alternative energy sources to heat/cool your home. If you don’t need it, don’t use it (air conditioning). Many people use it just to be comfortable when it’s not necessary, instead stay cool by closing doors and windows during the heat of the day, using deciduous trees to block the sun during the summer but allow heat during the winter…we CAN do more, it’s just that many people feel selfishly entitled to what they want, instead of what’s best.

My response: You are a very dangerous person. You presume to know what’s “best.” Best for whom? Everyone? The entire world? Just who the hell are you to make such assumptions? You think that everyone should live as you choose to live and everyone should agree with your ideologies. And if they don’t, you call them selfish? Selfish according to your personal judgment? Again, just who the hell are you? You think that you have all the answers to save the world and mankind. You see no problem with infringing on others’ rights or freedoms when it will enforce your personal beliefs.

That is the definition of fascism. You feel it is just fine to tax, fine, and even imprison people if they don’t adhere to your ideas of what is right for all of mankind. God made this planet and presented it to man. God Himself gave man the freedom to choose who to worship and obey, and you weren’t on the list of choices.

Who or what the hell gave you the superior authority to overrule anyone on how they should live, where they should live, how they should heat or cool their homes, what form of transportation they should use or how comfortable they should be while doing any of that?

And none of that has anything to do with whether people have the right to keep and bear arms without restrictions being placed on them when they purchase such weapons. But you think you’re so morally superior and have so much more knowledge that you should be able to dictate that as well.

And when people refuse to comply with all your high and mighty edicts then the punishments are visited on them. Well, if you wish to call me selfish, that is your label not mine. I am an individual and I have the freedom to make my own choices. I will not comply with enforced morality based on computer models and junk science and consensus rather than empirical, factual evidence. Not when it is in regard to how I live my life or how I defend my life.

You, and those who think as you do, are pompous asses. You seek to rule over people in every aspect of their daily lives and control them completely because you think you have that superior right, much as Islam rules over people. Well, if God didn’t seek to force me to agree with Him and gave me dominion over the earth, if He didn’t try to force me to worship Him, I sure as hell am not about to bow down to you and your ideas of what is important or necessary for the earth to survive and I’m never going to be forced to worship at the altar of man-made computer models which pose as science.

As for your ideas on gun control, stop fearing your fellow-man. The only reason you want gun control is because, when people refuse to do what you tell them to do, you don’t want them armed and able to defend themselves to prevent their being imprisoned for not complying. Even God didn’t go that far. So who the hell are you to think your ideas are more worthwhile than His? You are a fascist and you label others as fascists for not agreeing with you. That’s what the left always does. They paint others with the identifying label before it is used against them. Saul Alinsky much?

You know perfectly well that it isn’t safety against unhinged people having guns that is at the heart of this gun control argument. It sounds all compassionate, but it’s really about keeping the populace under control so that other restrictive rules can be pushed down people’s throats and then, when they refuse to be pushed any further, they won’t be able to defend themselves from being pushed the last few steps into complete domination by tyranny. This isn’t NRA talking points. Read history from ancient times through to the present day. It’s always the same pattern. As I said in the beginning, you are a very dangerous person.

The left only knows how to dish it. They talk the talk all the time, but they can never walk the walk. It’s fine for them to use the most horrific, terrifying, tasteless, obnoxious, outlandish, vile, vulgar, bullying, destructive, and harmful tactics against others, but as soon as anyone says the least insulting word or makes the least unflattering comment about them, suddenly it’s hate speech or needs to be litigated. They can say anything they like and it’s free speech, but no one else can say a word against them. They’re the fascists that they accuse everyone else of being.

According to Merriam Webster, the definition of fascism is: A political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

According to the left, their political philosophy, movement or regime most certainly exalts race above the individual. Example: Michael Brown and any BLM advocate, including Maxine Waters who claims a woman of color cannot be impeached.

According to the left, their political philosophy, movement or regime most certainly stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader (Obama saying he would do what he wanted with his pen and phone regardless of Congress), severe economic and social regimentation (decades of welfare entitlements draining the taxpayers), (affirmative action programs to force people to conform to dictated regimental requirements).

But most telling of all is the left’s political philosophy, movement or regime that forces suppression of opposition, as evidenced by their constant funding of rioters, student protesters, and educators at every grade level who refuse to allow anyone to express their point of view openly and freely if it is in opposition to the left’s point of view.

About the only thing that doesn’t prove the left to be fascists is that they don’t exalt the United States of America. They want to destroy the nation and remake it into their facist utopia.

Griffin is no different from the rest of the leftist liberals. They’re all of one mind and require everyone else to either agree with them or be destroyed, and they don’t hold themselves to any of the standards they require of everyone else. They are the true fascists.

Human nature has always been the same and always will be. We form societies and we try to conduct ourselves in a more productive and less barbaric way (except perhaps for those in the Middle East), but our instinctive human nature will never be done away with. As a species we can make Herculean efforts to overcome instincts, but we are a part of nature just as any other living creature is and we have limitations to what we can accomplish, especially in the face of such a powerful force as nature. Liberals are constantly wanting mankind to defer to nature in all other ways and yet, when it comes to the closest part of man to nature, our human nature, our instincts, they refuse to acknowledge it and scream loudly that we must do away with it. Not only isn’t it possible, but it’s what keeps us alive on the most basic levels. Their cry is “Hate yourself for being a natural man but love and respect everything else that is natural.” What a crock.

This is the major reason why trying to make everyone and everything “equal” and calling for “social justice” will never work. Humans are just as individually distinct from one another as members of any other species. We are not cookie cutter duplicates of each other and we cannot be herded and coralled as if we were. That sort of societal structure will fail every time it is tried. We need to be free just as much as any other animal. That is why liberal goals will never be achieved, at least not for very long, and why conservative goals always seem to be so much more successful.

Conservatives strive for the best but realize the realities that will have to be accommodated due to basic, unchanging human nature. Instead of fighting reality, we try to work with it to achieve more lasting results. We are more patient and willing to allow the process and learning curve to take shape over time. We are aware of possible bumps in the road and willing to adjust and even stop pursuing a course of action if reality shows it is not going to work.

Liberals want what they want right now and what they want isn’t ever going to be possible because they refuse to accept that we are part of nature and will always have basic, natural, instinctive behaviors. Liberals are like children who demand to have what they want and who throw temper tantrums and scream louder when they can’t have it. They are always unsatisfied and unhappy, always pushing for others to give them more and more and never grateful for what they already have. They embody the worst of human nature and they never seem to mature.

Islam is a governmental system. It is a totalitarian system that dominates every aspect of daily life. It is tyranny on steroids. The religion that Islam allows is Muslim. Muslim is a religion, but only able to exist if Islam is the system of government.

Muslim cannot exist without Islam to support it and Islam cannot exist without Muslim followers because neither one allows for any freedom or questioning or individuality. The Muslim faith MUST have a legal system (Sharia) and governmental system (Islam) that will enforce its religious practices or else people will question its practices and many will no longer abide by them. Islam MUST have Muslim believers because without them the government would have too many people questioning its tyrannical hold and dominance over them and many would rise up against that government.

Christianity existed long before there was a USA constitution and without Christianity, the USA would still be able to maintain its legal system and government. The USA does not need world dominance to exist and remain strong on its own. The USA was founded mainly on Christian teachings, but it would survive with Jewish, Buddhist, Daoist teachings just as well. Islam cannot do that, which is why they continually try to force Islam on every living being.

If there is even one person who does not submit to Islam, Islam is imperiled because that one person would be the weak link in their chain of dominance. The human spirit always seeks freedom. That will always be Islam’s weakness.

“The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.” Thomas Jefferson

In other words, if it causes no physical or financial harm, it cannot be legislated or punished because it cannot be submitted to. Offense is in the eye of the beholder. It is a choice. No one should be compelled by government to NOT offend another because it is up to the person who claims offense to be or not be offended. I cannot be held responsible for your opinion and your opinion is no more valid than mine. Therefore, be offended if you wish. It is based on your opinion and your choice. You cannot force me to agree with you anymore than I can force you to agree with me. It is not something that can be legislated. That would be an attempt to force an opinion by restricting freedom of thought and the right to disagree. It would be TYRANNY.